Catcher Interference on aborted bunt attempt?

[DG]

FOUL, as it was called.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Using this logic the catcher could step out in front of the plate and the batter would not swing, thus there would be no CI.

Translation: I think you are incorrect.

Rich,

If the catcher steps out in front of the plate to receive a pitch, he has de jure interfered.

If he precludes the opportunity for the batter to attempt, he has interfered with the opportunity to attempt and is held liable.

Translation: I think you are incorrect.

Originally Posted by DG

FOUL, as it was called.

DG,

In the play in the video....

1. I am fairly certain the PU never saw that the bat and F2's mitt came into contact.

2. I can not tell for certain whether the ball and the bat ever came into contact.

3. If they did, I am fairly certain that the bat-mitt contact preceded the bat-ball contact.

4. Foul would only be the correct call if the bat-ball contact preceded the bat-mitt contact. (Maybe you saw it differently than I, and I saw it wrong. Like I said, I can't tell for sure from the video.)

5. Who (of the players) "screwed up" here?

6. Who should be held liable?

7. How?

JM

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Rich,

If the batter steps out in front of the plate to receive a pitch, he has de jure interfered.

If he precludes the opportunity for the batter to attempt, he has interfered with the opportunity to attempt and is held liable.

Translation: I think you are incorrect.

I KNOW I'm incorrect. I said it on purpose as I was responding to DG who posted:

"If the batter is not offering at a pitch, he cannot be interfered with/obstructed (OBR/FED)."

to show him that the lack of an offer did not mean there was no interference.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

I KNOW I'm incorrect. I said it on purpose as I was responding to DG who posted:

"If the batter is not offering at a pitch, he cannot be interfered with/obstructed (OBR/FED)."

to show him that the lack of an offer did not mean there was no interference.

I did not.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by DG

I did not.

You're right - sorry - it was mbyron.

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

DG,

In the play in the video....

1. I am fairly certain the PU never saw that the bat and F2's mitt came into contact.

2. I can not tell for certain whether the ball and the bat ever came into contact.

3. If they did, I am fairly certain that the bat-mitt contact preceded the bat-ball contact.

4. Foul would only be the correct call if the bat-ball contact preceded the bat-mitt contact. (Maybe you saw it differently than I, and I saw it wrong. Like I said, I can't tell for sure from the video.)

5. Who (of the players) "screwed up" here?

6. Who should be held liable?

7. How?

JM

There is much to be gained (or little) from reviewing slo mo replay, numerous times, from an angle the HP umpire does not have. None of us have that luxury. I say FOUL, because that is what was called, ball hit bat before bat hit glove, in the opinion of HP umpire.

This is frivolous discussion. None of us have access to slo mo from another angle, before making a call.

[UmpJM]

DG,

I was not discussing whether or not the umpire got the call right. I concur that is a pointless endeavor.

The question I was trying to explore is what would be the correct call if the ball had NOT hit the bat?

BI? CI? "Weak interference"? Something else?

What's the call and why? Just like the video, only the ball doesn't hit the bat.

JM

[UmpTTS43]

Under OBR, when the batter pulls his bat back on an aborted bunt attempt and the bat hits F2 in a legal position, it is considered "backswing int".

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Under OBR, when the batter pulls his bat back on an aborted bunt attempt and the bat hits F2 in a legal position, it is considered "backswing int".

J/R states differently. See page 96 of the current edition.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

J/R states differently. See page 96 of the current edition.

Well I guess you can do what J/R says or rule the correct way. This interp is taught at pro school and has been documented in past PBUC manuals.

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

DG,

I was not discussing whether or not the umpire got the call right. I concur that is a pointless endeavor.

The question I was trying to explore is what would be the correct call if the ball had NOT hit the bat?

BI? CI? "Weak interference"? Something else?

What's the call and why? Just like the video, only the ball doesn't hit the bat.

JM

Well, I think if batter pulls his bat back and makes contact with catcher, in any manner, that causes catcher to miss catching a pitch, when a runner is stealing, a good case is made for BI.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DG

FOUL, as it was called.

Neither the hypothetical nor the actual play posted has the ball contacting the bat ...